CoolBreeze44 wrote:Camden wrote:AbeVigodaLive wrote:Camden0916 wrote:Maybe this will be the year people wise up about Steph Curry?
???
Steph Curry is the caliber of star player that makes a good team great, but not the type of star that can put a team of starter-level players on his back and carry them deep into the playoffs. He's never been that guy, and luckily he hasn't really had to be because Golden State has done an exceptional job of surrounding him with players that alleviate his weaknesses. There are many stars like this so it's not crippling to his resume, but the talk of him being in the mix for best player in the world or calling him a top-20 player ever was always silly. Maybe this will be the year that people realize there are severe limitations to his greatness.
He's closer to Damian Lillard than he ever was LeBron James or Kawhi Leonard, which is where pundits have tried to group him with. That's not a knock, but it's definitely reality.
Cam, I'd have Steph in the top 15 of all time, but not the top 10. I think you have to make room for the greatest shooter of all time on the third team. He also won multiple MVP's and championships. And don't forget he was easily the best player and leader of their first championship team. There is no right or wrong answer, but it's not silly to talk about him as a top 20 player.
I just don't find that a viable argument for his case, personally. Being the greatest shooter of all-time is a legendary accolade, but it doesn't impact a player's all-time standing in the ranks. I don't remember anyone making the same case for Ray Allen or Reggie Miller before him and that's while acknowledging that Steph Curry's a different breed from those guys. And while MVP's are definitely legacy-builders as far as accomplishments go, there are MVP winners that either weren't the true MVP of the league or just don't compare to other legendary players that did the same or more with less help. Both scenarios are applicable to Curry, in my view.
I'm of the belief that James Harden should have won the MVP in 2014-15. Harden had the stellar numbers as well as securing the second seed in the Western Conference with a team that fell victim to injuries at every turn. What he did that season was nothing short of remarkable and fully deserving of MVP honors. I think he got snubbed as this was the beginning of the media falling in love with Curry. Admittedly, Curry was fully deserving of MVP in 2015-16.
I also think that not all MVP awards are created equal. For example, Steve Nash (x2), Derrick Rose, Russell Westbrook, and Steph Curry (x2) are all a far cry from LeBron James, Michael Jordan, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, and Shaquille O'Neal. But that's certainly subjective on my part.
And lastly, Curry was the best player and leader on a Warriors team that was extremely fortunate throughout the playoffs facing multiple teams without their best or second and third best players. As it is in all sports, luck plays a part in the process, and the Warriors can only face who was on the court against them, but that was next level circumstances during their run. Look no further than the Cavaliers starting five they faced in the NBA Finals -- LeBron James, Tristan Thompson, Matthew Dellavedova, Iman Shumpert, and Timofey Mosgov. And Golden State eked out a 4-2 series win. Look, a championship is a championship, but it's extremely difficult for me to give much credit there, especially to Curry for being the key cog in his lone championship season without Kevin Durant.
All of this is individual preference and my take certainly won't be for everyone, but Curry's just not on the same level as the guys that most consider top-20 or maybe even top-30. I've seen too many players accomplish the same or more with less help or more difficult circumstances.
